' KHALIL AHMAD, J.---The petitioner is a born citizen of U.K. Marriage between petitioner and respondent No,2 was solemnized according to Muslim rites on 13-10-2002 at Lahore. After the marriage the petitioner applied for spouse visa of the respondent No,2 which was issued on 30-10- 2002 and the spouses left for U.K., on 4-11-2002. Some differences between spouses cropped up and as such petitioner divorced respondent on 6-12-2003 and sent its copy to the Chairman Arbitration Council as required under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Proceedings were pending before Nazim/Chairman Arbitration Council, U.C. No,8 when respondent No,2 moved an application to the District Officer Revenue Lahore and alleged partiality of the Nazim of Cantonment (UC No,8) whereupon DOR Lahore transferred the reconciliation proceedings to Nazim Union Council No, 100, Ichhra, Lahore on 8-12-2004.
2. The respondent No,1 passed an order that as both the parties are living in England, therefore, the appointed Officer of the Pakistan Mission in U.K. Was competent to entertain the Talaq Notice and also conduct the arbitration proceedings according to SOR No, 1086(K)/1961. According to the petitioner after the issuance of notice of Talaq on 6-12-2003, the divorce became final. However, respondent No,2 continued to pose and present herself as his wife. The petitioner therefore, filed a suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Lahore seeking jactitation of marriage because under the law his marriage with respondent No,2 had come to an end. The learned Judge Family Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
'Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No,1 has misread and misinterpreted the provisions of SOR 1086(K)/61 and that under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 divorce pronounced by the petitioner has become final on 6-3-2004 and respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 8-12-2004.
3. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent No,2 wherein certain preliminary objections were taken and it was asserted that petitioner is in fact citizen and permanent resident of U.K. And his assertion of being Pakistani citizen is in fact misleading as he has acquired the status at belated stage specially for the purposes of writ petition. His overseas identity card was issued on 2-10-2005 and his temporary passport was issued on 14-10-2005 at London for a period of one year. Copy of British Passport as well as Overseas National I.D. Card and temporary Pakistan Passport are part of the petition. The petitioner's family is settled in UK since 1960 and that the petitioner is a born U.K.
Citizen and that he in October, 2002 visited specifically with the object of Nikah with' the respondent and taking her back to U.K. As his wife. Nikah took place on 1310-2002 and registered on the same day and the Passport was immediately sent to U.K. High Commission on 4-11-2002 and that Valima was held at U.K. And that the parties took up residence at 22-Priory Road, West Hampstead, London NW63 NU, U.K.
4. The respondent No,2 has also annexed with the reply copy of registry of Leasehold in favour of the petitioner with regard to the above-said property. It is also alleged that in September, 2003 respondent was badly beaten by the petitioner and on her cries for help police was called and the petitioner was issued a verbal warning against committing Domestic Violence on 29-10-2003.
5. The respondent No,2 remained throughout in U.K. And was ultimately given resident status as a victim of domestic violence. She tried her level best that divorce did not take place. Respondent claimed that the petitioner had played a fraud on law by travelling to Pakistan for one week and executing the fraudulent deed of alleged divorce dated 6-12-2003, the petitioner in the divorce deed has admitted of being permanent resident of Rompeolas, Stage Lane, Choreleywood, Herts, London WE3 5HD, U.K. He gave an incorrect and false address of the petitioner as 47 Y, DHA, Lahore and claimed that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner were infact completely contrary to the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 and the rules framed there-under and as such respondent No,1 had rightly held that he had no jurisdiction in view of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and its rules read with SOR No, 1086(K)/(61) dated 8-11-1961. The petitioner tried to have an ex parte decree of jactitation of marriage on the basis of incorrect address which was ultimately rejected by the learned Judge Family Court.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The moot point between the parties is as to whether in the given circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction lies with Arbitration Council/Nazim Union Council in Pakistan or with Appointed Officer of Pakistan Mission abroad to perform the functions of Chairman Arbitration Counsel under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 by virtue of afore-said SOR No,1086/K(61).
8. It is an admitted position that petitioner is a born citizen and permanent resident of U.K. He got temporary passport issued from London on 14-10-2005 after obtaining an overseas Identity Card on 2-10-2005. The respondents has also placed a copy of registry of lease hold in favour of the petitioner with regard to property i.e, 22 Priory Road West Hamstead, London NW-63 NU, U.K. The petitioner in the divorce deed dated 6-12-2003 has also admitted to be permanent resident of Rompeolas, Stage Lane Choreleywood, Herts, London WE-35-HD, UK. Which makes it clear that the petitioner is a resident in UK. Respondent No,2 throughout remained in UK and has been given resident status. Since both the parties are permanent resident of U.K. and as such as per Notification No, SOR 1086(K)/61 the function of Chairman Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 are to be performed by an appointed officer of the Pakistan Mission abroad. The order passed by respondent No,1 is according to law and upheld.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or substantial error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. This writ